Letters to the editor Dec. 3

Published: December 3, 2012 4:00 AM

Consideration of treaty is unnerving

Editor:

In the 20th century more people have been killed by their own government than by invading armies. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung, Pol Pot, Idi Amin and Hussein purged undesirables by "final solutions and cultural revolution." The common thread was the populace was denied arms.

During America's Constitutional Convention, delegates George Mason, Edmund Randolph and Elbridge Gerry did not sign the Constitution. They feared the Constitution was not clear enough to safeguard our "unalienable rights" from encroachment by the government.

[Article continues below]

The Bill of Rights was adopted in which the Second Amendment, "to keep and bear arms," was instituted as the safeguard against tyranny. "To disarm the people is the best and effectual way to enslave them," affirmed George Mason. Historically, the Founders knew classical Republican philosophy had long recognized the critical relationship between personal liberty and possession of arms by the people -- ready and willing to use them.

Aristotle noted two millennium ago, "Those who posses and can wield arms are in a position to decide whether the constitution is to continue or not." Cesare Beccararia argued for self defense, "False is the idea that would take fire from man because it burns, and water because someone may drown in it.

The law that forbids carrying arms are laws of such nature. They disarm those only who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity will respect less important and arbitrary ones with ease and impunity? Such laws serve rather to encourage than prevent homicide."

Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story stated, "The right of citizens to keep and bear arms has been justly considered as the palladium, the safeguard of liberties of a Republic since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rules."

The Second Amendment was not penned for hunting rights. It was penned so our liberties such as freedom of petition, peaceful assembly, freedom of press, freedom of religion, freedom of speech would not become the hunted.

[Article continues below]

A surprising quote by the pacifist civil rights leader Mahatma Gandhi, against British rule of India, "Disarming the populist was its (British's) blackest." It is an unnerving act that the Obama administration is considering the UN's Small Arms Treaty that would ban personal weapons. Write your senators.

John Lytle

Wooster

Give casino profits to schools

Editor:

My subject is school funding changes and repair by using windfall state money from the new casinos.

Current funding of Ohio's school districts has been judicially determined to be unconstitutional due to over reliance on local property taxes, which cause inequality of millage due to rich districts being able to afford high millage while poor districts cannot afford high millage in their property taxes.

The recently defeated Orrville additional millage levy prompts me to fear my Green School District will very soon request new levy money from us property owners.

This just furthers the unconstitutionality of the situation. The repair I recommend can be accomplished through the use of the hundreds of millions of new dollars now being received in Columbus from the new casinos profit taxes and fees paid to operate in Ohio.

If implemented this repair would be a win-win for both school districts and property owners.

I think this should be done as soon as possible before this money winds up in lesser priority spending projects.

This is not rocket science.

Just do it.

Bob Crooks

Smithville

Rate this article

anonymous Dec 4, 2012 10:03 AM

5

4

Here are some facts for you Cicero. Let's see you dispute them. As of the 3Q of 2012 corporations had the highest income over taxes in history. See Table 11 line 11 https://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/national/gdp/2012/pdf/gdp3q12_2nd.pdf .....Corporations don't need tax cuts. They just need to give non-executive employees raises. See charts in this article. http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/29/record-corporate-profits/ ....Corporate profits have increased by $1 TRILLION dollars since 2001. 100% increase in that time frame.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 4, 2012 8:07 AM

5

3

"Because he thought it was bad law, Obama just decided he wasnt enforcing DOMA (he doesnt get to decide that by the way)"

Obama never said he wasn't going to enforce this law...he said he wasn't going to defend it if it was challenged in court....but I am sure that your statement was out of ignorance and not a deliberate attempt to distort the facts....BTW, I see bam is arguing on your side...this should be cause for concern as he is wrong 99.999% of the time.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 4, 2012 4:37 AM

3

5

I didn't know you were trigger happy Cicero?I thought you just put out facts and the loons argued with name calling.I also wonder why they are arguing so much if they know whats in this treaty?But I wonder what will happen when UN troops show up at peoples door to confiscate weapons?Think it can't happen woody?Just be another repeat of history.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 4, 2012 1:27 AM

5

3

And that just drives you up the wall doesnt it jwood? Happy to be of service PS. Watch the language youre already on double secret probation.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 10:31 PM

4

5

Believe me, Cicero, if I thought that anyone was out to take away the public's guns, I'd be up in arms myself. Why, how would I defend myself against trigger-happy radicals like yourself?

And you ask why do we care what you think? It's because there are so many of you blithering idiots, and you never ******* never shut up.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 8:53 PM

4

5

Or, Goose, your insensitivity may make you the perfect victim. Whats curious to me, however, is why you care what I think. If I and others are wrong about this no big deal! Right? And yes, I believe the UN absolutely cares if we have guns. In fact, all our freedoms have, since this nations founding, represented a threat to tyrants who subjugate their people and who do you think comprises the UN? Is it leaders of free nations like ours? And why do you suppose our founders thought this right so important so we could go duck hunting? To illustrate strictly the concept of human apathy We now know what went on in those Nazi concentration camps but while it was happening, not even the German citizenry knew nor could anyone who did know convince them all just crazy conspiracy theory. The German people couldnt even conceive the notion their government could do such a thing. All that horror going on right under their noses. Imagine if they had only listened to those crazy conspiracy theorists.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 8:10 PM

5

4

From the same Snopes article: U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has not signed, nor has the U.S. Congress ratified, a United Nations (U.N.) arms treaty. In fact, the content of such a treaty hasn't even been finalized yet. A first draft of the Arms Trade Treaty was created at a U.N. conference in July 2012, but action on the treaty was indefinitely suspended after the United States (among other countries) declined to support a vote on the current text and asked for more time to consider the issue. The U.N. has since approved a resolution calling for a new round of talks on the treaty in March 2013, a move which the Obama administration has supported.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#cwlIawEzDfHwiDv8.99

bam, I know this is futile, but I would like to see some documentation on the treaty handing out names and addresses of citizens.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 7:00 PM

5

4

Cicero - your "sensitivity" may be blinding you to reason. Do you really think the UN gives hoot about whether Americans have guns? Guns can still be bought legally by citizens. Guns bought through an illegal market are what can't be bought. Do you think the second amendment should protect groups that buy illegal arms? Such as terrorist groups? What do law biding Americans have to fear from such a ban? That the terrorists and criminals might be outgunned? That it not be a fair fight?

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 6:54 PM

5

5

Could part of this treaty give the names and addresses of U.S.citizens to whomever asks?Why yes it can.Seems I heard this a few eeks ago.That's right,I told you that it would be voted on by the U.N.Just AFTER the election and the Senate just has to not act for 30 DAYS and it is LAW.And we all know how well the SENATE is at not acting.Interesting that I talked with some WWII veterans and they are more than willing to take this country back.I wonder if there is anyone else who will stand up when needed?What do you think equalizer,Will you stand up for this country?

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 6:06 PM

5

4

The Constitution is only as strong as the peoples will to protect it and/or our governments desire to observe it. During Bush, we stood idly by while the Patriot Act basically crapped all over the 4th Amendment because we were convinced it was for our own good. For the same reason, we seem to tolerate TSA agents groping our parts or inspecting the contents of some old womans colostomy bag. Because he thought it was bad law, Obama just decided he wasnt enforcing DOMA (he doesnt get to decide that by the way) and again with certain aspects of the Dream Act (which was never passed by Congress) and again with the work requirement of the Welfare Reform Act which however you interpret exactly how or what he changed, he didnt have that authority. So youll have to excuse me for having a bit less confidence regarding how safe our constitutional rights are and perhaps a more sensitive threshold of concern as well.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 4:57 PM

5

4

Cicero, Snopes is not a leftwing site. I included the mediamatters link to point out that even Fox isn't falling for this hogwash about the arms treaty. You are free to make a big deal out of whatever you choose. And you do. Personally, I like to find out the reals facts before I overreact. From Snopes (and my own knowledge of the FACTS): There is no "legal way around the 2nd Amendment" other than a further amendment to the Constitution that repeals or alters it, or a Supreme Court decision that radically reinterprets how the 2nd Amendment is to be applied.

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#eed2rCsicLvJgMyd.99

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 3:42 PM

5

4

Interesting stuff Justanobserver. Straight from the horses mouth and it begs the question: If you dont want people to think youre trying to take away our 2nd Amendment rights, why would you be negotiating or entering into treaties with people (the UN) who clearly do?

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 3:28 PM

4

4

Or dman it could be not everyone is interested in your facts nor are they obliged to dispute them. The left always wants to frame the argument thus controlling the debate and keeping it on terms theyre sure they can handle. You think that because you sit there and tap out your little posts and present your links to leftwing websites that this is now the debate and everyone must respond or they are somehow unable to match your superior intellect. Cicero finds you amusing.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 2:55 PM

5

5

You can find information and the resolutions here: http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 1:34 PM

5

4

Fascinating how the repubs try to turn discussions to something else when they can't dispute the facts.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 1:11 PM

5

3

What I find fascinating is when people call others stupid (or gullible) for believing what they read based on what the people calling them stupid read. Whats even more fascinating is how desperately people search for truths that fit their agendas. Like, for example, this mediamatters.org link marc posted. These are the people (the Fox lies crowd) who relentlessly attack Fox News but the minute they see something they like there, they post it on their website. But what is perhaps most fascinating is this seemingly unadulterated trust of government that somehow develops in people when they believe their interests are being represented. Frankly marc, Id feel a lot LESS stupid over making a big deal out of nothing than I would for not doing so and having it turn out to be something.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 1:03 PM

4

4

Good idea Bob. Too bad the repubs in control of the state will never do that. They want to keep the money in Columbus for themselves.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 1:02 PM

4

4

It's amazing how gullible the repubs supporters can be. They all rush out in 2008 to pay hugely inflated prices for guns and bullets. Yet 4 years later nobody even tried to take their guns away. Now they are doing it again. Gun and ammo manufacturers have to be loving them.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 12:45 PM

4

5

http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp It's bunk. Gun sales went up after Obama was elected, they shot up after he was re-elected. The head of the NRA said Obama wants to lull us into a false sense of security so he can take away our guns after his re-election. BS. The cartels favorite amendment is the second amendment, they love the NRA and the ability to go to a gun swap and buy what they want. The UN isn't coming here in tanks either. It's just right wing conspiracy blather.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 11:53 AM

4

5

There is an email that has been circulating for a couple of years that contains those ridiculous falsehoods about the Arms Treaty. I didn't have to read the treaty to check its veracity. Just a couple of clicks will help you broaden your knowledge, Cicero. "The Arms Trade Treaty has nothing to do with restricting the legal sale or ownership of guns within the United States. The aim of the U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is to combat the illicit international trade of arms by "tightening regulation of, and setting international standards for, the import, export and transfer of conventional weapons" in order to "close gaps in existing regional and national arms export control systems that allow weapons to pass onto the illicit market." The text of the proposed treaty specifically "reaffirms the sovereign right and responsibility of any State to regulate and control transfers of conventional arms that take place exclusively within its territory, pursuant to its own legal or constitutional systems," so even if such a treaty came to pass, U.S. rights and laws regarding the sale and ownership of small arms would still apply within the United States.

No such treaty could "bypass the normal legislative process in Congress," as all treaties to which the U.S. is a signatory must first be approved by a two-thirds vote of the U.S. Senate before they are considered to be ratified and binding."

Read more at http://www.snopes.com/politics/guns/untreaty.asp#8FWwdiCO8plU2iPk.99

I agree, jwood, the lying is unbelievable, and the gullible are believing these lies without question!

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 11:05 AM

5

3

Interesting jwood Can you tell us where you obtained a copy of the treaty so we too can read it? Perhaps the real question here without even considering the true content or intent of this treaty is: Why would our government, sworn to protect our freedoms and unalienable rights, be negotiating behind closed doors with the UN period regardless of whats actually in this treaty. The timing also raises questions why did the Administration wait until the day after the election to agree to these negotiations? What did Obama mean when he was caught by a microphone (he thought was off) telling the Russian President Ill have more flexibility after the election please relay that to Vladimir (Putin)? Maybe this is all nothing but given what could be at stake, isnt it better to err on the side of caution? Its easy jwood Just pretend its a Republican president doing this.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse:

Report abuse captcha box:

anonymous Dec 3, 2012 8:45 AM

5

5

There should be a law in place that sends Republicans to jail for lying. In an instant, they'd all be behind bars. There is nothing in this treaty, absolutely nothing, regarding a citizen's right to bear arms. It only involves the exportation of weapons. Try to get that through your rock-like skulls.

Please type the five letters you see above into the Report abuse captcha boxwhen reporting abuse: